Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Charles Spurgeon, "liberal evolutionist"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 01:54 PM
Original message
Charles Spurgeon, "liberal evolutionist"?
(...)-- Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Sermon delivered on Sunday, June 17, 1855 at New Park Street Chapel.

The timing is interesting. Note the date. This sermon was delivered some four years before Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Yet Spurgeon, universally acclaimed as a conservative, Bible-believing preacher was already preaching some form of old-earth creationism from his pulpit at New Park Street Chapel. (...)

My point was that Spurgeon would have been characterized as a "liberal evolutionist" if young-earth creationist organizations were consistent in their criticism of old-earth creationists. According to them, Bible teachers and preachers who accept an ancient universe are guilty of compromising with modern science and atheistic Darwinism.

Imagine my surprise when I noticed that Answers in Genesis recently began putting Spurgeon's sermons on their website! (...)

Here is the original again:

“In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.

Here is Aig's "updated" version of the same passage:

"In Ge 1:2, we read, ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' Our planet has passed through various stages in creation and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation."

(...)Spurgeon's sermon has been sanitized for the AiG audience. Apparently, the reality of Spurgeon as an old-earth creationist is too much for AiG to allow the viewing public to know about. They even rewrote a portion at the end to change Spurgeon's statement that "the Creator gave up the world to confusion" to make it appear that Spurgeon said merely that "the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation." And presto! The editors turned Spurgeon into a young-earth creationist, even though he said no such thing. (...)

http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Why_Doesnt_Answers_in_Genesis_Tell_You_the_

emphasis added

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
metapunditedgy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. There are a few different issues in play.
Age of the earth is one thing (related to the length of time represented in Genesis 1), and evolution of species is another. I have heard further distinctions between the evolution of humans and non-humans.

Even in very conservative churches, you can find people who believe in old-earth creationism. But I think they tend to keep quiet; the prevailing mantra is certainly young-earth, and you can lose your job if you're in a church that doesn't agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I think at the
very least, 'creationists' should ADMIT that the earth is not 6,000 years old!
They are helping NO ONE with that bullheadedness. :grr:
And, to go so far as to LIE? What motivates deception? Not the Love of Truth, that's for sure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
metapunditedgy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Well, they don't think it is more than 6000 yrs old, so there's nothing to "admit."
It's a question of "who you believe." They think their particular reading of the Bible trumps everything. Until that way of thinking changes, nothing else will change.

But like polio, these things are mostly eradicable. The more you know, the harder it is to hold to those kinds of views.

Beating creationists over the head will just embolden them, but education and increasing contact with the rest of the world is already overcoming their isolationism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I think there
Edited on Sat Apr-11-09 03:39 PM by Why Syzygy
is at least one additional component. That would be the part of their theology that rejects science as a devil. And to many of them, contact with the rest of the world is precluded as part of that theology. It's part of their separatists stance. It also ties in to their "end times" framework.

However, no one is suggesting beating them over the head. I AM suggesting to end the lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. Nobody has ever
Edited on Sat Apr-11-09 03:23 PM by rrneck
called me a Bible scholar or a theologian. But I was wondering this morning if Christian theology had jumped the shark when the Gutenberg Bible was printed?

Until that time, I understand scribes altered the texts for various reasons. Those changes could have been used to adapt the text to cultural changes at the time. That would have allowed the text to be adapted without shaking anyones faith. But when the Bible got printed and distributed to people who understood it to be the word of God, it became impossible to make the invisible albeit necessary changes it needed to keep it relevant. (And of course it didn't help that the Catholic church didn't exactly set the woods on fire with change since they had a lot of assets to defend with their theology.)

One might say that printing and distributing the Bible as the undisputed word of God carved it in stone. The cultural response seems to have been Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation. If we couldn't change the text, then by golly, we'll change our understanding of it. The result has been the proliferation of all the various religious sects that interpret more or less the same text in very different ways.

And now we have various denominations billing their understanding of the Bible as the undisputed truth for their own profit, and they are unwilling to accept any other interpretation for fear of losing money and power. The path to idolatry takes many turns.

Maybe some things are better left as an oral tradition.

damn typos

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. Lyell's Principles of Geology were published around 1830: the thesis was that
the same forces now visible had also shaped the earth in the past, and the geological conclusion was that the earth was much older than previous generations of scientists had imagined. Since Lyell was writing at a time when religious fundamentalists had reached the conclusion that limestone fossils on high mountains were evidence of Noah's flood, various religious responses to his work were inevitable. All educated people knew by then, from the astronomical work of Newton, that a philosophy of Biblical literalism and inerrancy would not square with modern science -- and there was already a tradition, stretching back millennia, that insisted on reading the "six days of creation" narrative in an allegorical manner. So it is completely unsurprising to find English religionists, even before Darwin, ready to read the Genesis creation account in a nonliteral manner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. Heh
AIG is so scummy even a couple of biblical conservadroids noticed. Hell, the Australian and US wings of AIG pull dirty tricks on each other. They can't even get along with themselves. Too funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-21-09 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. Fixed link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC